I Was Asked - Probably - Not to Make a Deal Leading me to Hell For the Freemasons

I am not a Freemason, I am also not asking to become one.

If they tell you I am doing sth they like, possibilities are either it's a thing most people like whether they are Freemasons or Catholics* - or that the Freemasons are getting or portraying me wrong.

I say "probably" because I was simply seeing someone write "don't go to Hell for the freemasons" under a status of H.H. Pope Michael where H.H. said "Nothing is worth going to Hell for."

The question to me is not "when will Freemasons offer me to publish my essays or play my compositions?" nor what I will have to do before they accept me as a Masons. The question is "when will CATHOLICS" etc and what will I have to do before they accept me as not a Freemason and on the contrary definitely a Catholic.

How long will Catholics be listening to insider tips from the lodge telling them I am one of the lodge, when I am not? How long will the lodge be offering what seem to be pairs of supervisors trying to decide whether I am worthy of the lodge or not yet, when I never was a candidate in the first place? Probably as long as Catholics are stopping me from having a life, and imagining what I wrote was sth Masonic which I need to repent for, when they have not even read it!

I am a Geocentric - and Masons are known to honour Galileo and Bruno as sth like "martyrs for science". I am a YEC - Masons are known to be if not always at least usually evolutionists. And I am Catholic. How long will it take for some to see that?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux
of Paris III. Arrondissement
Sts Sabinus Bishop of Assisi
and Exsuperantius and Marcellus Deacons
and Venustian with wife and children - Martyrs
30-XII-2014

* Doing macramé to repair your sack may seem to tie in with Masonic reverence for artisanship, but Catholics too may honour artisans! St Joseph the Carpenter, St Paul the Occasional Tentmaker.

Felicem Festivitatem Nativitatis Domini Lectoribus Meis et Praesertim Fidelibus Christi Exopto

25 Decembris Octavo Kalendas Januarii. Luna ... *. F Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo. Hic autem in priori voce dicitur, et in tono passionis: Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem. Quod sequitur, legitur in tono Lectionis consueto; et surgunt omnes. Eodem die natalis sanctae Anastasiae, quae, tempore Diocletiani, primo diram et immitem custodiam a viro suo Publio perpessa est, in qua tamen a Confessore Christi Chrysogono multum consolata et confortata fuit; deinde a Floro, Praefecto Illyrici, per diutinam custodiam macerata, ad ultimum, manibus et pedibus extensis, ligata est ad palos, et circa eam ignis accensus, in quo martyrium consummavit in insula Palmaria, ad quam una cum ducentis viris et septuaginta feminis deportata fuerat, qui variis interfectionibus martyrium celebrarunt. Barcinone, in Hispania, item natalis sancti Petri Nolasci Confessoris, qui Fundator exstitit Ordinis beatae Mariae de Mercede redemptionis captivorum, ac virtute et miraculis claruit. Ipsius autem festum colitur quinto Kalendas Februarii. Romae, in coemeterio Aproniani, sanctae Eugeniae Virginis, beati Martyris Philippi filiae, quae, tempore Gallieni Imperatoris, post plurima virtutum insignia, post sacros Virginum choros Christo aggregatos, sub Prsefecto Urbis Nicetio diu agonizavit, ac novissime gladio jugulata est. Nicomediae passio multorum millium Martyrum, qui cum in Christi Natali ad Dominicnm convenissent, Diocletianus Imperator januas Ecclesiae claudi jussit, et ignem circumcirca parari, tripodemque cum thure prae foribus poni, ac praeconem magna voce clamare ut qui incendium vellent effugere, foras exirent et Jovi thus adolerent; cumque omnes una voce respondissent se pro Christo libentius mori, incenso igne consumpti sunt, atque ita eo die nasci meruerunt in caelis, quo Christus in terris pro salute mundi olim nasci dignatus est. Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias. [De martyrologio romano in interrete, mensis decembris http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/22.htm]

Adeste fideles - Venite Adoremus - Pavarotti
Pertu84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI7Hi147-Xg

Genesis among Myths - were they meant to be understood literally? Yes

On Philologica and New Blog on the kid : 1) Flat Earth theories - Common Sense or Solar Mythology?, 2) Why were Babylonians so sure Apsu and Tiamat were different substances?, 3) Genesis among Myths - were they meant to be understood literally? Yes

On Assorted Retorts : 1) ... on Historical Adam and Eve, 2) ... on Genre of Genesis

Of course, where they contradict, one of them at least is literally wrong, as also is the case between these and the Modern Evolution myth.

Now, I will be quoting a pdf which was shared on FB in Catholic Creation Alliance, the FB group. While reading it, my attention underwent some modifications.

First I grasped, then forgot that the pdf was against a general trend of people saying "Genesis is a myth like the rest of Ancient Oriental creation myths" rather than against a specific author arguing it was so.

Then I saw the arguements of the specific author who wasn't there and the non-answers by the author who was, that is the author of the pdf and started giving the responses I felt were lacking.

Then I discovered the author I argued against was not a real author, but the résumé in our author's mind of several people claiming roughly similar and overlapping things.

Last, I saw the responses given by our real author, and felt they needed a bit of correction too. Here I will be giving my responses all over the process, with indications when I misunderstood and when I no longer misunderstood that there was no particular author claiming these things in writing, and also adding some other clarification, but deleting nothing.

What I state in my "answers" to the non-extant author is of course my steady conviction just as what I state in my corrections to the extant author.

"It is argued that, since Genesis is a mythology borrowed and adapted from other ancient Eastern Mythologies, the author never intended for it to have been interpreted literally."

Right there ... the other ancient Eastern Mythologies were taken literally. The enlightened attitude to myth as symbolism which we know from Greco-Roman Pagans of late antiquity, for one thing even left these with much more "mythological thinking" than some would credit them for. Would Plato have disbelieved tree nymphs? Would Aristotle have insisted heavenly bodies are purely material things, neither innate nor extraneous spirits guiding them? No. For another thing this attitude was probably developed somewhere Homer-Plato times when it came to gross myths like "a god like Apollo chasing a nymph as if he were a playboy" - it was even absent in the times Homer wrote about (and not very overt in Homer either) and as certainly strange to the Middle East Paganism.

"because there was virtually no linier understand [linear understanding] of history, at least in the modern sense, among ancient eastern cultures, the author of Genesis must have had no intention for Genesis to be a factual account of history."

If one could be sued for being an eejit, this author [=non-extant author of the non-extant other paper I thought refuted in the pdf] would drown in law suits.

Paganism having "no linear understanding of history" refers to certain "advanced" Further East Paganisms having a cyclic one [much more recently]. But even these would if referring to an event as past and if philosophising it was as future as it was past eternally infinitely many times over, still be referring to the event as an actual past event, and not as a merely hypothetic conjecture of the future or cyclic future-past.

Plus, Cyclic view of History was not quite the Ancient Middle East one either. Rather it was linear in a sense similar to Christianity, but non-Apocalyptic, i e having all interesting stuff ONLY in the past.

"In other words, since the ancient pagan religions, because of their rather circular view of history, assigned little to no importance to events of the past or future, we shouldn’t expect Genesis to do otherwise."

Balderdash.

Mixing Greeks up with Chanaaneans, and both with Stoics and Hindoos (Stoics actually also had a cyclic view of history). His view of "Ancient Paganism" is worth as much as taking one's view of "Middle Ages" from Hal Foster. King Arthur fighting Saxons but getting help from a VIKING who also takes a VIKING SHIP to Americas ... Leif Eriksson spoke neither English (Anglo-Saxon) nor British and lived about 600 years later than King Arthur - and the last Legionary on Hadrian's Wall is mixing the Arthurian Romans with the kind of Romans you find in Asterix and the Centurion of the Gospel and Prussian militarism as well at the bottom of it. It is good reading, like when Gaels coming to help King Alfred against Guthrum march with Bag Pipes or like when Farmer Giles from the Little Kingdom well before Emperor Constantine carries a blunderbuss. But these anachronisms have no weight as historic arguments there were blunderbusses in England before Constantine or that a Viking could meet a Roman who was wearing the uniform and armour of his predecessors in Hadrian's time. THAT is about how intelligent the thesis is (if even as much).

But here the [non-extant] author refuted by this paper gets one worse (unless misrepresented [by the real author refuting "him"]):

"In other words, since the ancient pagan religions, because of their rather circular view of history, assigned little to no importance to events of the past or future, we shouldn’t expect Genesis to do otherwise."

What is worse here? Taking a Chanaanean who sacrificed children and a Babylonian who sacrificed bulls (which the Chanaanean perhaps also did) for the equivalent of a Zen Buddhist, just because both are Pagan?

Or trying to sense what having a circular view of history would mean, and from one's attempt at empathy with a state of mind clearly not one's own conclude that "they attached little to no importance to events of the past" (when they bothered to keep records) "or future" (when they bothered to do diviniation).

[Here I make the discovery:]

One little problem here before I can say I have refuted an author taking this view, the paper cites none.

The resumés are not of a given opponent, but a subjective résumé of ideas common among a huge set of opponents.

I can of course not say we cannot have gotten one of them wrong insofar as he might have argued somewhat more intelligently than this imagined and synthetic proponent of "Genesis was only meant as myth" hypothesis.

But I don't have the feeling of really having missed a huge amount of intelligent arguing for that position.

Quite another position is of course the Atheist one, that Genesis is myth like the others and like the others WAS meant to be taken as literally true and like the others was created by a series of misunderstandings - but that is hardly the position you will find argued among Modernist priests.

"Still, other common motifs found in various eastern creation myths include a spontaneous generation of gods who, following fundamental motif of pagan religion, deified common objects of nature (e.g., the Sun and the Moon), ... Rather than deifying the heavenly bodies (i.e., the Sun, Moon and stars), Genesis treats them merely as God’s creations, that would not exist apart from His awesome and creative fiat (Gn 1:16)."

Deifying Sun and Moon and recognising some kind of personhood in them are two completely different things. Author [real author] of this paper [of the pdf] speaks of "objects" and of "heavenly bodies".

Genesis speaks of luminaries. Jews except Sadducees, Pagans, early Christians all seem to have shared a concept (I am of course as subjective in my résumé as the author* is in his résumé of the opponents**) that angelic beings were actively behind the physical world. It is - back then as yet - too vague (or at least my résumé of it - as back then - is) in a way to pinpoint the fine distinction on whether Sun is an angel having "fire" or "a burning gas cloud" as its body (which seems to be condemned in 1277) or is an angel who carries a ball of fire or a burning gas cloud like a lantern (which mos-t conspicuously was not condemned in 1277 when the distinction was already well analysed). But it is clearly there. BY the time of Christ it has basically been contested mostly by Epicureans (the philosophy à la mode of the time, the philosopphy St Paul warns against) and by Sadducees "who do not believe in angels" (no mention of them making an exception for angels guiding heavenly bodies).

Note VERY well this is NOT a theme where Paganism and Genesis or later Hebrew and Christian writings are up against each other.

"Hence, the Genesis account, unlike ancient pagan myths, is in all together a whole other category by itself. It took itself as real history;"

But so did the Pagan mythologies. The "nice symbolic story" interpretation of Pagan myth was not around yet.

"it taught of One God, rather than many; that God existed prior to matter, rather than matter having already existed;"

This contrast is correct.

"that the heavenly bodies were creations, rather than deifications to be worshiped;"

Sun and Moon were hardly even considered deifications by Platonists. And St Thomas in his sermon on the Creed upbraids worshippers of Sun and Moon, not for undue personification of personless mere things, but for taking a servant in very fine uniform for the king. Or rather, for doing the equivalent of it when it comes to Kingship of the Universe.

"that sea creatures were mere creatures, as opposed to rivaling the gods, and a host of other contrasts."

The Pagan idea in that kind of myths was basically that universe was run by superheroes but only after they beat supervillains.

Note that neither Genesis nor Gospel deny that sea may contain supervillains.

Bible just says, such supervillains are no match for God, he had no need to fight them physically as a mere superhero.

Except on the Cross, where His fight has a moral dimension.

And the nature He needs to put up a fight is not the Divine and Eternal nature, but the assumed one, not even of a superhero, not of an angelic creature, but of a man.

Et Verbum Dei caro factum est et habitavit in nobis.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Christmas Eve
24-XII-2014

Download for pdf:

Genesis-Another Creation Myth?
https://www.facebook.com/download/preview/320795014793094

* Here the real author of the pdf

** The several opponents resumed, about whom I was at a moment under impression of dealing with a single author refuted by the pdf and to be more completely refuted by me.

Autriche, Croix contre Croissant, Présent et Passé

1) Autriche, Croix contre Croissant, Présent et Passé ; 2) Si Benoît Rayski avait tort? ; 3) Presque un bon discours ... presque ...

L'Observatoire de la Christianophobie : Autriche : un musulman scie un Crucifix
http://www.christianophobie.fr/breves/autriche-un-musulman-scie-un-crucifix

Lisez l'article assez époustouflant en ligne.

Revenus?

Bon, mon commentaire dessus:

"Le Crucifix a été réérigé en un autre endroit, mais le maire a porté plainte pour dégâts matériels, dénigrement de la religion et entend que le scieur supporte les frais de la réérection…"

J'entendrais plutôt que l'Égyptien soit obligé à vendre son terrain, payer la réérection en même endroit, des frais que le maire fait aux officiants en exorcisme et rebénédiction, et qu'il soit aussi obligé de quitter le village (les lieux-dits sur -dorf étaient au moins à l'origine des villages, certains sont plus grands maintenant), quitter Basse-Autriche, quitter Autriche; quitter Europe. Mais une fois les frais pour ses dégâts payés par la vente exécutive, que le restant lui soit versé.

J'aime Autriche, j'aimes ses Crucifixes publiques.
Vous connaissez le Crucifix sous Lequel était assise la femme d'un Croisé captivé, elle filait si c'était de la laine, si c'était du lin, et ce qu'elle vendait, elle donnait aux pauvres, et après vingt ans, son mari - que les Sarracins avaient mis en esclavage - revint.

Tellement d'autres aussi captivés ne sont pas revenus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Veille de Noël
24-XII-2014

Lost Chances

I once in Academia while doing German was reading "Die verpaßten Chancen der BRD und der DDR" or sth like that (perhaps rather "... in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublike und der DDR"). At least the compendium or even book was known as Die verpaßten Chancen. It means the lost chances or opportunities.

How many Catholics will doubt Pope Pius XI lost a chance while forcing - through obedience - the Cristeros to lay down arms, after which they were massacred by a government that had double-crossed Pius XI? There is more.

1) Pius XII wrote some kind of decree - cited by Pope Michael to prove Pius XIII/Pulvermacher was no Pope - detailing what divinatory superstitions were illicit. He did not stay with the list in the books of Moses, since he added using the pendulum, which however Pulvermacher could cite the Curate of Ars as having done.

2) Vatican II seems to have in one of the texts concemned slavery as a blight on humanity. By implication the condemnation would include slave hunt.

3) Ratzinger/Benedict XVI condemned dealers.

Now, psychiatry and psychology are superstitious, slave hunting against the normal freedoms of free men, and in the case of psychiatry also dealing drugs which are certainly uncomfortable in the case of neuroleptics, and sometimes very dangerous in the case of antidepressives.

1) Pius XII did not enumerate psychological and psychiatric diagnoses and analyses as an illicit superstition.

2) Vatican II did not enumerate psychiatry as one of the modern forms of slavery.

3) Ratzinger did not consider shrinks as the dealers they are. But dealers forcing their drugs on the victims.

Now, that is what I call lost chances.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Holy Thirty Martyrs
of Via Lavicana under Diocletian
22-XII-2014

PS : Same observations - not always, excepting through psychiatry involving drug dealing - can be raised about Child Protective Services and School Compulsion.

Pietro Gasparri avait tort sur la charité

1) deretour : Émotion et passion, s'égalent-ils selon la Somme? ; 2) New blog on the kid : Pietro Gasparri avait tort sur la charité

Voici une page que je viens de trouver en milieu tradi:

MAURRAS TOURNONS LA PAGE
IL Y A MIEUX, BEAUCOUP MIEUX
par LOUIS-HUBERT REMY
http://www.a-c-r-f.com/documents/LHR-Maurras_tourner_page.pdf

Avant de lire le tout, je tombe sur une erreur théologique déjà au début, ou qui me semble tel, à savoir dans la note en bas de page numéro 2:

Si l'on parle de charité, on devrait rappeler auparavant, que cinq conditions s'imposent pour que la charité soit vraie :

• 1. Être en état de grâce.
• 2. Qu'elle soit mue par des motifs surnaturels.
• 3. Qu'elle soit efficace :
  • a. en tant qu’elle se rapporte à DIEU, elle doit porter à accomplir Sa divine volonté ;
  • b. en tant qu'elle se rapporte aux hommes, elle doit nous porter à chercher le bien du prochain.
• 4. Qu'elle soit ordonnée :
  • a. aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commande-ments ;
  • b. faire passer l'amour pour la patrie après l'amour pour l'Eglise ;
  • c. ne pas chercher le bien du prochain au détriment de notre propre bien spirituel ;
  • d. chercher d'abord le bien spirituel de l'âme de notre prochain et, après, le bien matériel de son corps.
• 5. Qu'elle se déploie dans la justice et la Vérité.

Et comme référence pour cette définition de la vraie charité:

Catéchisme catholique par le cardinal Gasparri, Chabeuil 1959, p. 759 et sv.

Allons aux erreurs et aux correctitudes.

Sa première condition:

Être en état de grâce.

Commentaire

Être en état de grâce n'est pas une condition au sens juridique du terme, c'est plutôt une condition dans le sens logique. Mais attention, avoir la charité est dans ce sens là également une condition d'être dans l'état de la grâce.

On peut avoir la foi sans la charité et donc sans être dans l'état de la grâce sanctifiante.

On peut avoir la foi et l'espérance sans la charité et donc aussi être sans l'état de grâce.

Mais si on a foi, espérance et charité, on ne peut pas ne pas être dans l'état de la grâce, comme on ne peut pas ne pas avoir foi, espérance et charité si on est dans l'état de la grâce.

Sa deuxième condition:

Qu'elle soit mue par des motifs surnaturels.

Commentaire

Aucune objection - ceci est correct. Aimer Dieu parce qu'Il a accordé une bonne vacance par la providence mais ne pas l'aimer parce qu'Il est très saint, ce n'est pas la charité divine. Aimer le prochain parce qu'il est sympa ou pitoyable mais pas parce que Dieu le veut, ce n'est pas la charité du prochain.

Sa troisième condition:

Qu'elle soit efficace :

• a. en tant qu’elle se rapporte à DIEU, elle doit porter à accomplir Sa divine volonté ;
• b. en tant qu'elle se rapporte aux hommes, elle doit nous porter à chercher le bien du prochain.

Commentaire

Prétendre aimer Dieu sans le vouloir obéir ce n'est pas l'aimer. Prétendre aimer le prochain sans lui vouloir faire le bien connu comme tel n'est pas aimer le prochain. Au moins dans les situations où le bien est un bien qui est obligatoire à chercher.

Sa quatrième condition:

Qu'elle soit ordonnée :

• a. aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commandements ;
• b. faire passer l'amour pour la patrie après l'amour pour l'Eglise ;
• c. ne pas chercher le bien du prochain au détriment de notre propre bien spirituel ;
• d. chercher d'abord le bien spirituel de l'âme de notre prochain et, après, le bien matériel de son corps.

Commentaire

Malheureusement Pietro Gasparri ne donnait pas un résumé totalement correct.

Le premier point est correct: aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commandements.

Le deuxième point n'est qu'une conséquence de la charité bien ordonnée, comme la définent St Thomas après St Augustin. Un Catholique bien instruit doit être d'accord, mais un catholique mal instruit ou un non-catholique ayant une appartenance paradoxale à l'église, peuve se tromper au moins pour des instants là-dessus, sans que ni leur foi ni donc leur charité soit fausse.

Par contre, ce point est important pour comprendre pourquoi Action Française, ou Maurrassisme intégral, fut condamné. Si Maurras en tant que non-Chrétien et Lyndon La Rouche en tant que non-Catholique ont été capables à mal définir soit ce point, soit la charité ("politique d'abord" pour Maurras, Positiviste, ou "charité veut dire être inventif pour maximiser la densité de la population humaine" selon la théorie du Quaker marié à une Catholique), un Catholique en revanche ne peut pas adhérer à une mouvance politique où il est de rigueur d'adhérer à ces erreurs des fondateurs, pour combien il soit autrement autorisé à les valoriser.

Donc, point b est une conséquence, pas une condition en soi, de la charité bien ordonné.

Points c et d sont par contre mal formulés.

Correction sur c: On ne doit ni chercher le bien du prochain, ni celui du propre corps au détriment de son propre bien spirituel, c'est à dire pour le minimum, on ne doit jamais commettre un péché mortel, ni pour le bien de son corps, ni pour le bien du prochain. Aussi, on ne doit jamais renoncer à sa foi ou a son espérance du salut et des conditions qui y conduisent pour rendre un tel bien. Et non pas à sa dévotion à Dieu non plus.

Correction sur d: St Augustin et St Thomas nous donnent une autre liste des priorités:

• 1) Dieu - comme déjà dit.
• 2) La propre âme.
• 3) Le prochain.
• 4) Le propre corps.

Ce n'est donc pas dans l'amour du prochain, mais bien dans l'amour de soi-même qu'on doit faire primer l'âme sur le corps. Du prochain on ne connaît pas l'âme, ou non pas toujours. On peut préférer un bien à son corps certain à un bien à son âme incertain. On peut préférer une aumône matérielle selon les sept oeuvres de la charité matérielle définies à une correction dont on ne sait pas si elle est due, dont on ne sait pas si le prochain va profiter.

Quand on doit refuser un bien du corps du prochain pour son âme à lui, on le doit généralement aussi pour son âme à un-même. Par exemple, le prochain dit qu'il va mourir si on lui refuse un péché partagé de la chair, c'est possiblement pour le bien de l'âme du prochain et certainement pour le bien de son propre âme qu'un Chrétien refuse ça.

Si on se dit, "moi je pourrais bien faire ce qu'il demande sans que ça nuise mon âme, mais si je le fais il va devenir orgueilleux", on se trompe, car on ne le connaît pas. Ou, si c'est chose certaine qu'on doive éviter ce qu'il demande, on se trompe en se disant qu'on pourrait le faire sans nuire son propre âme, car c'est le cas surtout pour les péchés mortels. Définis comme tels.

Sa cinquième condition:

Qu'elle se déploie dans la justice et la Vérité.

Commentaire

Ceci, comme la première, n'est pas une condition séparé. Dans la justice veut dire dans la justice dont les principes supérieures sont la charité de Dieu et du prochain. Dans la vérité veut dire qu'une charité véritable n'existe pas sans une foi véritable. Donc, encore une fois, c'est rédondant.

D'ailleurs, comme la vérité de la foi peut être obscuré sur tel ou tel point même pour un Catholique, comme on peut au moins momentanément avoir la foi sans avoir la confession catholique (un rudiment pour les très mal instruits, comme les ayant jamais rencontré un Chrétien ou un Missionaire, serait de croire que Dieu existe et qu'Il remunie ceux qui Le cherchent), ainsi aussi, la vérité dans laquelle se doit déployer la charité peut aussi être obscurcie au moins momentanément pour quelqu'un sur tel ou tel point.

En total les "cinq conditions" donnent un peu l'impression de devenir un moyen pharisaïque de juger de l'état de grâce d'autrui, éventuellement pour le condamner. Au début - la condition "être dans l'état de grâce" semble donner l'instruction de s'assurer de l'état de grâce par les sacrements - ça pourrait ressembler à une liste pour avoir une idée qu'on ait déjà la charité ou qu'on doive se corriger pour l'avoir. Mais la "cinquième condition" est formulée de manière à porter plutôt à un jugement des autres. Qui est prêt de se dire que les propres actions se déroulent en dehors de la justice ou de la vérité? C'est plus facilement de le dire sur un autre.

C'est aussi un moyen d'excuser ceux qui prônent une inégalité indue envers des prochains faisaint "objets de charité" qui se disent qu'en refusant des aides aux corps et l'explicant, non pas par leur manque de moyens, ni pour le gêne que sa causerait pour la société en général, ni par le fait que la situation actuelle était une dans laquelle ce prochain était obligé de se contenter par paix chrétienne (ce qui n'est pas le cas pour chaque situation mauvaise), mais pour le bien de celui auquel on refuse le bien, à savoir auquel on refuse le bien corporel pour lui donner le bien spirituel.

Après, sur Gasparri, il a été là quand Pie XI donnait les États de l'Église à un roi auparavant excommunié - Victor-Emmanuel III - comme ses prédécesseurs depuis son grand-père Victor-Emmanuel II pour leur occupation depuis 1870 et quand en retour il reçut la somme que de la suite il organisa en l’Amministrazione delle Opere di religione que son successeur (ou présumé tel) Pie XII transforma en Institut pour les œuvres de religion qui faisait tellement comme une banque qu'il fut surnommé Banque du Vatican. Donc, j'ai peut-être une autre raison de ne pas trop aimer Pietro Gasparri.

Cardinal Stickler - ou qui aurait été tel si les Papes qui le nommaient avaient été des Papes disait comme canoniste qu'il y a trois choses qu'un Pape ne peut pas changer:

• La Bible
• Les rites pour l'administration des sacrements (y compris, selon Stickler, la Messe Tridentine)
• Le "status Ecclesie"

Tant que je sache, ceci est le territoire auquel renonça Pie XI en 1929, avec Gasparri comme signataire du Concordat. Status en latin médiéval veut parfois pas juste dire état comme qualité passagère mais plus prolongé qu'instantanée, ça veut parfois aussi dire l'état dans le sens politique.

C'est à dire, si j'ai bien compris les canonistes que Stickler cita, Pie XI n'avait pas le droit de céder les États pontificaux - aussi dits États de l'Église ("status Ecclesie") - à qui que ce soit.

Dois-je regretter avoir prôné telle ou telle observation de Maurras, parce que celui-ci avait tort en prônant l'amour de la patrie audelà de l'amour de l'église? Non, car je n'ai pas prôné cette erreur. Dois-je regretter avoir prôné telle ou telle observation de Lyndon LaRouche quand celui-ci redéfinissait de manière erronée l'essence de la charité? Non, car je n'ai pas prôné cette erreur là non plus.

Je ne suis ni un Action Française intégral des heures où Maurras méritait la censure ecclésiastique, ni un Nouvelle Solidarité intégral d'aujourd'hui.

Je dois davantage à deux Catholiques qu'à ces deux hommes, à savoir à J. R. R. Tolkien et à Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Samedi de Quatre-Temps
20-XII-2014

Duhem and TOF Spot

The TOF Spot : Duhem on Physical Theory and Experiment
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/12/duhem-on-physical-theory-and-experiment.html

Modus tollens states that

p→q
not-q
/.: not-p

which is to say "p" has been "falsified." However, in this manner, heliocentrism, natural selection, and electromagnetism were "falsified." Does Popper have the grace to blush?

Now, modus tollens is good logic. The problem with using it is knowing whether the two premisses are true.

Is p→q true? Or is the real judgement rather "p→q OR r" or "o AND p→q"?

Is it true that not-q or is q possibly unobserved?

IF both p→q is true AND not-q is true (i e q is false) THEN not-p is also true (i e p is also false).

Now let us see how this applies to the taste of examples of TOF:

heliocentrism→visible stellar parallax
no observed stellar parallax
/.: no heliocentrism

Now, p→q is obviously in principle true. If Sun is at least proximate centre to an annual rotation by Earth, the-in-principle-observable movements of stars must include an inverse apparent motion to that of Earth. This is however not the same as their in-principle-apparent obverse movement being certainly actually observed, something else can stop observation - like distance. If a man is sufficiently far away, he may walk pretty fast without seeming to move at all. If a man walks beside a mountain that is sufficiently far away, the distance might make even an hours walk of the man incapable of seeing any apparent obverse motion in the mountain.

This is also the solution given by heliocentrics. I'll quote TOF for you:

But in every case, what was falsified was not the main proposition, but certain auxiliary assumptions associated with it. Heliocentrism would result in visible parallax IF the stars were close enough. Stellar distance was based on the brightness and apparent diameters of the stars; but those diameters were spurious: artifacts caused by optical aberration. The stars were really much farther away and the resulting parallax was too small to detect at the time.

Now, before going on with any other, shall we stay with Heliocentrism for a while?

heliocentrism AND close sphere of fixed stars → reasonably even stellar parallax
no observed stellar parallax that is reasonably even, on the contrary the parallaxes vary very much
/.: no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars

So, I can take the view of parallax as usually taken:

no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars
heliocentrism
/.: no close sphere of fixed stars

And from there go on on the path trodden by Herschel onto modern cosmology as per 1930.

I can also take the view of parallax in another way:

no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars
a close sphere of fixed stars
/.: no heliocentrism

Which is what as a geocentric I do.

There is even another thing on this one:

heliocentrism only causes parallax observations → no inverse parallax
inverse parallax observed (63 Ophiuchi has parallax 0.77 arc seconds obverse sense to usual)
/.: something other than heliocentrism can (also?) cause parallax observations

Wrong on example 63 Ophiuchi, right on other example, same implications, see below.

Why the first?

If Earth moves one way, stars will from there on appear to move the other way. If I walk beside a mountain for two hours, the mountain will be meeting me and receding behind me, i e like a walker going the other way. An inverse parallax is as if I were walking beside a mountain and mountain appeared to be walking by my side, same direction as myself.

Of course, the Heliocentrics do have another explanation for the inverse parallax. They say 63 Ophiuchi is so extremely far off that the measure of its parallax is unreliable.

In other words they say that "inverse parallax observed" is not strictly true, it is rather "inverse parallax pseudo-observed".

But .... how about asking how they then know that the measures for parallax of α and Proxima Centauri (0.74 and 0.76 arcseconds RIGHT way for a parallax, I have recently corrected my previous fact) are measured correctly?

For one thing, how are parallax angles measured?

By a protractor? Very huge NO. The angles you can measure by a protractor are like down to 1°. This includes 60' (arcminutes). Which includes in its turn 60" (arcminutes). So each degree you can observe on a protractor 1° = 3600". An angle 3600 times smaller than a degree cannot be measured by a protractor. I have tried to find out, but the science community is not very informative when challenged by an enquirer challenging its usual views. "You have the right to remain silent, everything you say will be used against you" is said to criminals, a scientist usually does not have a moral right to remain silent especially if what he says is used against him!

So, from there on, how do we know the nearest stars in the Centaur are really 4 lightyears away? Even if we take the Heliocentric assumption.

But let us assume the parallax angle of the Centaur stars is correctly measured, why not assume it can be the same for 63 Ophiuchus? And if that is so, its inverse parallax simply cannot be caused by Earth moving annualy, just as however distant away a mountain is, my walking in one direction will not make mountain look as if walking beside me and faster than I.

It will of course look as walking beside me when compared to closer objects. But only as fast as I. I will not be walking forward and having the mountain where my arm is stretched out straight to the right when I start and two hours later, walking a straight road, I will have the mountain where I hold my arm between right and forward at 45°, that will not happen. (If the mountain is an angle more forward, it must be I who turned to the right).

There are only two explanations* of 63 Ophiuchi (its angle is repeatedly mesured at same one):

• it is moving either same way as Earth is moving annually or opposite way to how Sun is moving annually
• it has like every other star a parallax that moves obverse to Earth's movement, but this is apparently inverted by greater parallaxes of stars around it.

In the first case, an angel is moving 63 Ophiuchi and angels are moving the other stars too and they do not prove heliocentrism in any way. Or God is Himself causing each movement and they are not mechanic-optic results of Earth's movement and do not prove heliocentrism in any way etc. What is possible for one star need not be true but must be possible (as in thinkable) for any other star.

In the latter case, parallaxes must have a uniform factor of addition, so the 0.77 arcsseconds minus** annually land at plus. And if so, this uniform (and therefore hidden) plus factor must also raise the value of parallax at the Centaur. Instead of 0.76 arcseconds, we get at least 1.53 arcseconds. This would not prove Heliocentrism, but if this were true and Heliocentrism also, then the Centaur would be lots nearer.

So, waiting for readers to come with objections, I close this essay for now, on stellar topic. What about "natural selection, and electromagnetism"?

The others were similarly falsified. A new trait would be diluted before it could establish itself; permanent magnets did not have an electrical current. ... Similarly, inheritance was not through the mingling of blood, as Darwin and his contemporaries thought, but through genes. That is, inheritance is digital, not analog. A gene mutation could spread through a population until it reached a critical concentration and bearers began mating with one another. And the electron bore the electrical charge for permanent magnets. ... The electron was a leap of faith, postulated specifically to justify electromagnetism for magnets that were not overtly electrical.

Meanwhile the electron seems to have been verified by the cloud chamber - as to its existence when emitted from an atom. but this does not quite mean it is a certain truth as to its supposed role in atoms. Which I touched on here in these three debate posts:

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science, 2) Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles, 3) JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)

And the main thing about Darwin is not natural selection, but a variation sufficient to provide new varieties with never seen before possibilities such as natural selection can favour. One of these is of course that bacteria only had one chromosome, if they are supposed to be our ancestors, and we have more. Precisely among mammals this is a difficulty:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

To return to angelic movers, and to optic-observational confirmations of Heliocentrism, have a look at this oldie:

HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

The many "comments" aren't me "talking to myself", they are simply using comboxes to insert afterthoughts, and to this one there were many!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gatian of Tours
18-XII-2014

PS The O'Floinn is obviously not English but Irish-American. Here is a friend of his, at his best (I have seen him at his worst too ...):

Catholic and Enjoying It : New Atheism, Old Empire
December 18, 2014 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire.html

* Feel welcome to mention a third one I haven't thought of!

** You know how "minus" in modern maths applied is often used to mean "value opposite direction to plus values", rather than as meaning "subtract the following number".

I had known from the catalogue search on Tycho Main there were these objects with negative parallax, and in these high ranges, but had no names for them, so I checked a search with "negative parallax" and landed on 63 Ophiuchi - which I presumed would be the clearest case of negative parallax, since only one mentioned in wikipedia. Then I misread the range. My bad. Since I am a writer, not an astronomer, I will not loose the promotions in astronomy for this, I am not expecting any. The maximum negative parallax I found, at any rate, had rectascension 040.79214577 and declination +41.43010962. It is not 63 Ophiuchi, since that star has (according to wiki) Right ascension 17h 54m 54.04380s and Declination −24° 53′ 13.5413″. Even if the system of the catalogue did allow a totally different notation of rectascension, the declination would hardly vary between ... well, here is what the README has to say about ra and dec: Right ascension (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H8/T8 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [0,360]; Declination (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H9/T9 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [-90,90] T8 and T9 are the fields I copied. These should be identical for the H8 and H9 fields in the other catalogue. Well, what do we get: Catalogue Selected: Hipparcos Main Catalogue Fields and parameter search limits: ra (degrees): Min 040.791 Max 040.793 dec (degrees): Min 41.429 Max 41.431 0 entries satisfied your request. But switching to Tycho Main we do get one, namely the one I started with. Parallax -904.4 mas. More than a thousand times greater negative parallax than the one I read (when rereading correctly) for 63 Ophiuchi.

Stollen and Christmas Riots (Links)

Tea at Trianon : Stollen
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2014/12/stollen.html

Quote:

The biggest mistake people make with stollen, I’ve found, is not making it at all. This Christmas, don’t let that happen to you.

Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation : Puritans Ban Christmas; Royalists Rebel Against Rebels
http://supremacyandsurvival.blogspot.com/2014/12/puritans-ban-christmas-royalists-rebel.html

Quote:

On 25 December 1647, there was further trouble at Bury, while pro-Christmas riots also took place at Norwich and Ipswich. During the course of the Ipswich riot, a protestor named ‘Christmas’ was reported to have been slain – a fatality which could be regarded as richly symbolic, of course, of the way that parliament had ‘killed’ Christmas itself.

English parliament ... English Inquisition of 1401 (observed by Anglican James VI and I burning a Baptist on the stake in 1612 as well as during Mary Tudor against the council of her husband Philip II of Spain, and even earlier St Joan of Arc who was tried under the English system in a France occupied by England (or the part where it happened was). Christmas ban under Cromwell. Laws fatal to Indigenous Canadians in 19:th C.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued)
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/03/watching-exhibits-1-14-first-video.html

Quoting myself:

Exhibit number 2: 10-11 George V, Chapter 20, 10, 1: Every Indian child between the ages seven and fifteen years who is physically able ...

Comment: an infamous text, especially considering the previous words, in 9, 6, which gives principals a right to confiscate any earnings made by the residents.

But was George V responsible for this or was the then cabinet and the House of Commons responsible for it? I say the cabinet of 1920 with the HoC 1920. As to his person, George V did "rule but not govern". That may have been a mistake, he might have ought to have done a coup d'état like King Gustav III of Sweden to stop this and was culpable by omission of action, but those culpable by their own actions were certainly the cabinet and the House of Commons.

Wonder if it will accomplish any good thing like abolishing school compulsion and child welfare (you know the welfare workers who care about the welfare of a child to the point of disregarding the rights of the parents)?

[This blog] : Is there a Criminal in Buckingham Palace?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-there-criminal-in-buckingham-palace.html

Quoting myself:

Cinderella was not victim of a mother, but of a stepmother. How many statistical certainties that such and such parental behaviour will cause damage are really there because a "society" has stepped in as "Cinderella's stepmother" and done the real damage after blaming damageable behaviour on parents?

German traditions (like Stollen) are better than English acts of Parliament (like the Christmas ban). Some of the latter have, thank God, been lifted.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Rufus and Zosimus
Martyrs at Philippi
18-XII-2014

Philippis, in Macedonia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Rufi et Zosimi, qui ex illorum numero discipulorum fuerunt, per quos primitiva Ecclesia in Judaeis et Graecis fundata est; de quorum etiam felici agone scribit sanctus Polycarpus in epistola ad Philippenses.

Supposons que je sois un savant idiot

Alors, qui a interêt à me le reprocher mille fois à travers des intermédiaires qui en théorie me veulent bien mais qui lui font davantage de confiance qu'à moi?

On peut avoir un interêt de convaincre le public qu'un savant idiot est un savant-idiot, surtout s'il est lu. Supposons que les frères Bogdanovs sont des savants-idiots. Leur soutien à la théorie de Big Bang (et donc leur non-soutien à la création comme décrite par la Genèse) pourraient me donner envie d'utiliser le fait d'être lu pour convaincre MES LECTEURS que les frères Bogdanovs sont des savants-idiots.

Mais en fait je n'ai pas cette envie. Il me suffit pleinement que de convaincre mes lecteurs (si Dieu me donne quelques victoires dans les consciences) que les frères Bogdanov comme le "père" Georges Lemaître (inventeur de cette théorie folle) avaient et ont tort. Ce qui est un jugement, non pas sur leur personnes, mais sur leur thèse.

Donc, quelqu'un pourrait penser que j'ai tort d'être créationniste-jeune-terre, que j'ai tort d'être géocentrique, que j'ai tort de penser que le ciel en total est mu chaque jour un tour autour de la Terre par Dieu et chaque corps céleste reçoit ses autres mouvements, autres que de simplement suivre celle donné par Dieu, par un ange. Il y a probablement davantage de gens qui pensent que j'ai tort que qui pensent que j'ai raison de nos jours.

Là, ils auraient très bel et bien un interêt de convaincre chaque lecteur que j'ai (ou les plus importants au moins) que j'ai tort.

Mais d'où alors la manie de vouloir convaincre que ce soit les autres ou que ce soit moi-même que je suis un savant-idiot?

Auraient-ils un peu trop peu d'arguments envers les autres pour les convaincre sans de m'humilier devant eux, au moins derrière mon dos?

Ou imaginent-ils que je souffre par mes idées, c'est à dire par ces idées mêmes? Non. Si on m'avait prêté une presse, du papier, de l'encre, et encore un relieur ou une relieuse, et suffisemment d'interêt pour que des gens achètent en quelque quantité mes livres (j'imagine que je n'ai pas besoin d'autant de lecteurs que les frères Bogdanov pour survivre), et ceci en bon temps, j'aurais pu avoir moins de nuits à sommeil coupé, moins de matins froids, moins besoin de compenser par café sucré - et meilleurs dents.

Il y a des gens qui ont acheté Hans Hörbiger avec sa doctrine de la glace éternelle - et dans le Troisième Reich, et encore de nos jours. C'est biensur autant a-chrétien que la théorie des frères Bogdanov. Ma théorie thomiste ne l'est pas.

Il y a des gens qui ont acheté von Däniken, avec sa doctrine des anciens astronautes pris pour des dieux ou pour des néphélim. C'est biensur autant a-chrétien que la théorie que chaque vue des extraterrestres supposés est maladive (un Chrétien sait que le diable peut arranger des fausses visions). Ma théorie augustinienne sur des visions non-chrétiennes (y compris des OVNI) ne l'est pas. Et n'aurait pas conduit un pauvre ayant vu des soucoupes volantes à devoir fuir la police pour éviter la psychiatrie, occasion dans laquelle la police s'est rendue meurtrière.

Il y a des gens qui ont acheté Ichtiaq Rassoul avec sa théorie (selon lui encore un peu vague) que le dioxyde de carbon issu des actes humains pourrait nous menacer avec une catastrophe de déséquilibre (il a lui-même eu des sains réserves dans son livre), par certains comme Al Gore depuis précisé comme nouvelle glaciation. Ma théorie très chrétienne que la Terre est dans les mains de Dieu et qu'Il cautionne les actes humains normaux, comme de mettre du feu dans le chéminé, n'est pas derrière la décision farfelue d'interdire totalement à Paris les feux dans les chéminés.

Il y a des gens qui ont acheté Anta Diop avec sa théorie que les Égyptiens étaient des Noirs et que notre dette civilisationelle envers les Égyptiens (déjà un concepte assez vague, à moins d'être précisé par un Maurrassisme ou Comtisme) se traduit dans une dette envers les Noirs de nos jours. Voir même que la non-reconnaissance de sa théorie (que ce soit cette identité ou cette dette envers des gens qui ont simplement la même couleur de peau que les supposés premiers Égyptiens) repose sur négrophobie et complexe de supériorité raciale des Aryens ... ma théorie sur la gratitude est que nous la devons envers Dieu et envers le Dieu-Homme qui est mort sur la CRoix pour nos péchés et résuscité le Troisième Jour.

Ai-je une volonté de convaincre les Hörbigeriens de nos jours que Hörbiger était un savant-idiot? Ai-je une volonté de convaincre des gens ou von Däniken lui-même qu'il est idiot-savant? Non, et de même comme avec ces deux, aussi avec Rassoul et Diop. Il me suffit de convaincre des lecteurs que ces gens là - ainsi que des gens encore plus huppés, comme Galilée, Darwin, Freud, Engels, Marx, voir Einstein et les Réformateurs protestants - ont TORT.

Parce que contre chacune de ces bêtises, j'ai des arguments que je considère valables pour convaincre des gens intelligents qui ne souffrent pas du parti pris que ces idées là sont faux.

Je me pose des questions sur les intentions mais encore sur la qualité des arguments des gens qui n'osent pas m'affronter en débat. Je viens d'avoir une joute avec Edward Babinski. Il vient de la finir. Mais il n'a pas pu la finir sans me lancer une reproche personelle, par exemple que je devais être très égocentrique d'avoir ces certitudes que je venais d'exprimer devant lui. Non, especialement pas le géocentrisme. Celle-ci veut dire que je suis 6 371 km du centre de la terre qui est aussi le centre de l'enfer et très considérablement davantage éloigné du ciel empyréen, car celui-ci est audelà de la sphère (ou quasiment) des étoiles fixes et cette sphère est audelà des corps "du système solaire" dont je reconnais les distances donnés par les astronomes avec assez peu de caution. Déjà la lune (distance la moins doutable et qui est certainement pas encore du tout le début de l'empyrée) est 384 400 km audessus de moi. C'est davantage que les moins que 6 371 km qui me séparent de la périphérie de l'enfer non? Et cette position est encore la même pour moi que pour chaque autre personne vivant sur terre. Comment est-ce que ceci pourrait être égocentrique? Mais Edward a au moins donné quelques jours au débat.

Il y a quand même la possibilité que ce soit égocentrique de moi de croire qu'il y ait des gens qui me veulent convaincre que je sois en idiot-savant. Peut-être. Supposons que tous et chacun qui a pu me considérer comme tel (ou supposons que personne ne m'ait considéré comme tel, pourquoi ne suis-je pas davantage dans les débats, quand il y a tellement peu d'autres qui disent les mêmes choses de nos jours?), que chacun qui m'a pu considérer comme idiot-savant se soit abstiné d'une quelleconque volonté de me faire sentir ce qu'ils pensent de moi, pourquoi alors n'a-t-on pas joué mes compositions? Un Beur qui m'est croisé quelques temps m'a dit qu'il les trouvait très jolies, mais il n'a pas encore que je sache essayé de les jouer en public, malgré mes conditions sur le blog musical qui le lui permettent.

Mais si ma musique relevait aussi d'un syndrome de savant-idiot, pourquoi a-t-il trouvé mes compositions jolies? Il est musicien, il devait savoir. Et ma mère, elle jouait de l'alto jusqu'à un accident de feu* qui la privait de quelques doigts et de l'ouie en grande partie, elle ne peut plus jouer de la musique comme elle ne peut plus examiner avec le sthétoscope, pourquoi est-ce qu'elle les a aussi trouvé jolies? Parce qu'elle est ma mère? Non. S'il y a une chose qui lui déplaît chez moi, chez ma conduite ou autrement, elle a sa façon de me dire au moins "nä du Hans" ...

Donc il paraît raisonnable pour celui qui connaît ces faits (moi et encore par exemple chaque lecteur qui me fait confiance):

• qu'il y a des gens qui me veulent faire sentir que je serait un savant-idiot;
• qu'ils se fichent si leur ambition me fait mal aux dents ou autre part (sans rien dire des nuits avec privations de sommeil);
• qu'ils préfèrent me le faire sentir que de prendre un débat honnête avec moi sur les idées qui nous séparent;
• qu'ils préfèrent me repousser dans la pauvreté que de me rendre service même comme musiciens pour mes compositions.

Notons, avec moi et ma lenteur et malconfiance en moi en oral, un débat honnête est surtout un débat en écrits sur internet. Ce qui a aussi l'avantage que les arguments seront lus comme arguments plutôt que sur le ton. Quoique, certains semblent décidés en avance de m'imaginer avec un ton arrogant ou fâché dans chacun de mes écrits, parce que ma situation m'a posé dans des occasions à l'être dans les vis-à-vis en face.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi Georges Pompidou
Dimanche Gaudete**
14-XII-2014

PS, j'ai parlé de débat honnête. J'ai eu davantage de débats en anglais qu'en français. Peut-être par les fourbes qui prétendent que je ne parle pas bien français ou que je sois anglais ce qui pour certains quasi implique ce fait. En français un peu peu, mais Arnaud Dumouch vient de refaire un début:


Répliques Assorties : à Arnaud Demouch / Radio Maria France : Inerrance Biblique et Anges-Moteurs-des-Astres http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2014/12/a-arnaud-demouch-radio-maria-france.html


[Ibidem :] Arnaud Dumouch II - Inerrance Biblique http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2014/12/arnaud-dumouch-ii-inerrance-biblique.html

* Il y a eu des gens qui l'ont détenu dans le lieu où elle a dû être sédatée de manière de ne pas en temps éteindre l'étincelle qui tombait sur ses vêtements en nylon. Et le nylon n'était pas totalement son propre goût vestimentaire non plus.

** Attention, les Catholiques! Mercredi, Vendredi et Samedi seront des jours de jeune. Sa Sainteté Pape Michel n'a pas aboli les Jours de Quatre-Temps.

Le dimanche Gaudete

• 1) Troisième anniversaire de la consécration épiscopale de Sa Sainteté Pape Michel (auparavant élu en 1990, en Conclave de Cas de Nécessité);
  
  
• 2) Item pour le début de mon roman pas encore fini sur Susan Pevensie après l'accident ferroviaire qui tua les autres amis de Narnia;
  
  
• 3) Le Jour de Fête de l'Immaculée Conception je viens d'écrire l'article approprié, mais sur un autre blog, le voici:
  
  HGL's F.B. writings : La plus haute décoration militaire remportée par une femme
  http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/12/la-plus-haute-decoration-militaire.html
  
  
• 4) Ce matin j'ai été chez l'Ordre de Malte.

TFP Is Waxing Distributist?

Here is the set of paragraphs which temporarily gives me some hope:

That is to say that a job implies limited commitment on the part of employer and employee alike. It is an individualistic commercial contract based upon the rule of money as the standard upon which all is judged. Since the job is a mere unit of labor, the employer is free to shuffle these units around at will, even offshore. On their part, employees often assume an indifferent attitude towards their jobs—as willing pairs of hands—since their employment represents nothing more than the financial means to secure the pursuit of happiness and self-gratification.

What is missing is the human element that has been hollowed out of the economy. Our economy has taken on a mechanical character where people really don’t matter anymore since they are but numbers in bureaucratic databases or statistics in political campaigns.

Of course, there are times when people need “jobs” as temporary avenues to secure sufficient income to live. But the job should not be the norm. It cannot become a panacea for all our economic ills. Indeed, creating jobs for jobs’ sake tells people they are expendable.

Work is something different; it confers dignity and value. Because work involves a passion for something, it goes deep into the soul. Work is not all about money. It involves relationships, honor and loyalty that bind together employer and employee, producer and consumer, and even families and generations. Work looks for craftsmanship, profession and calling. It includes God since real work takes on a prayer-like character.

If employer is uncle and employee nephew, and employee is likely to inherit business when childless uncle leaves off, or until his children grow up or likely to get his uncle's aid in purchasing another business when the cousins take over the one he is employee in, that employee is very likely to be loyal and very unlikely to be a Trade Unionist.

This is more or less the norm of small business among Immigrants, very much North African ones, a little less usual among Black Africans, but still not uncommon. There was another norm in Europe.

An employee was usually not a relative of his employer, but he was one of some few employees at least in one's own generation, one of which had a hope to succeed his master as the better fitted to do so, by becoming after making a master piece (technical meaning here!) recognised by the guild as a master.

When on the other hand employer comes from something richer than middle class, one small set of employees from middle class and a greate set of employees from "working class" (i e blue collar), the employee is likely enough to see the work as a pile of work to be done. In order to get a wage.

So, TFP could naturally hence look for one of two solutions:

• 1) more companies are small and employing essentially social equals of employer (even the cobbler's assistant being essentially equal to the cobbler, unlike his relation to ECCO directors and owners);
• 2) workers loving their work and their employers even if the scale is not very human.

In the latter case, they are not far from the Henry Ford they pretend to denounce:

The term “job” calls to mind the scandalously inhuman statement of industrialist Henry Ford who reportedly said: “Why is it every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?”

In the latter case, they are basically asking Henry Ford (or, since he died in the meantime, his likes today) to do serious efforts to convert every one who looks for a job and whose brain attached to the hands is a Trade Unionist brain into one looking for interesting work and as loyal to the Henry Ford's of today as the nephew to his uncle. And, unlike Chesterton, equally condemning of the Trade Unionist, since also asking worker to be so "converted" by his employer. They might even promote measures worse than his, like hoping psychology might deal with Trade Unionist minds.

As they themselves admit, providing a job is sometimes needed: "as temporary avenues to secure sufficient income to live." Precisely as some others, while living more modestly, use begging.

Well, if the jobs provided are of the type "one employer to fifty workers" or even worse "one executive director to 100 shareholders not actively involved to 1000 workers", then it is reasonable to assume that human nature being what it is, they will come looking for a pile of work to be done and hope the pile is not too large and the pay is not too small.

Trying to convert fifty workers from that attitude means refusing to try to convert their one employer into something half like understanding of the human condition, even when it comes disguised in the trappings of another class than his own.

Happy are those whose jobs correspond to their work—and there are still many on all levels of society.

I am that while writing. I am less so while begging to continue to write.

Btw, even in work as one one is concerned with for its sake and not just for the pay, realistically speaking, there are things like piles of work to be done. That is even true of home making.

Anyway, my own hope for my own case, getting some printer to take a risk (self-publishing as usually done is both costly beyond me and presumes one has a place to store the books), is by the nature of the case marginal. Tractors may develop so as to make farmers as rare as writers, but as far as I know, this is not yet the case, and historically speaking it is more like 100 farmers or more to each writer.

So, getting back from my own case to the general one ... I have given a proposal in which finding a new job corresponds to finding work that is usually both healthy and engaging - for the strong. A company closes down a factory because it is bankrupt? Well, then it cannot do very much about it. But a company closes down a factory because it finds cheaper labour elsewhere (the kind of meanness towards workers which corresponds to a Trade Unionist attitude sometimes verging toward meanness) ... i e it still has money ... well, they could try to buy off the workers discharged by buying them a piece of land, no commercial requirements, just they can live off the land and perhaps do good as farmers, collectively or individually as they want to.

Governments could also tell someone "ok, you produced in France, fine, you paid normal taxes for producers in France, no more, fine, now you want to produce in Morocco instead because wages are lower there, even that is fine ... but then you will, I suppose, find it fine as well if we fine you* for that by charging customs as well, right?"

That is not the same as Governments subsidising for tax money building projects all over the towns, where the labour often enough goes to immigrants who are vagrant builders. Especially the case when they were instead of building actually tearing down a Church.

But governments could also, as Chesterton and Lyndon LaRouche between them suggested:

• 1) grant small business exceptions from regulations made by Trade Unionist lobbies since soundly applicable to big business (already done here : businesses are classed in small as 1 to 5 employees or simply self employed, medium size as 5 to 50 employees and large as above 50, and they have different regulations);
• 2) grant prospective future owners of small businesses more favourable conditions, as in curbing or abolishing taking of interest on loans, or as price regulating so that saving to buy a business without taking a loan becomes easier - also a good idea for housing;
• 3) simply free small business from regulations practically excluding them, as requiring equipment hygienically necessary only on larger scales, but of everyone even the smallest scale, as allowing unpasteurised milk to be sold in vicinity so it is sold between milking and noon same day (ok, exact hour may depend on climate and season, noon example is taken from hit Bombay).

Of course TFP is right that lots cannot be made by government efforts but needs to be done by individual initiative if it is to be done correctly.

For instance, I can relate to a man preferring to stay on the dole or on study loan rather than taking a boring job, what shall I say about people who cannot even envisage business starting (like I offer as a writer for publishers, or like cooperatives could start coffee rooms**)? Latin was more fun than taking a job in packing and unpacking, and it helps me time after time as a writer, but the dole (which is far more common than Latin studies!) is hardly a better position than a business ... Unless we are getting to the times when business owners (if that is what the passage in Apocalypse refers to) will be required to take the mark of the beast just in order to buy and sell (on a more than retail scale) - but can we be sure the passage means that***? And cannot - or could not up to recently - some more numerous business owners with fewer employers each postpone that sad event?°

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Lucy of Sicily
13-XII-2014

Source: TFP : The Big Pile of Work That Must Get Done
Written by John Horvat II / Created: 04 December 2014
www.tfp.org/current-campaigns/return-to-order/the-big-pile-of-work-that-must-get-done.html

* Pronounce with an accent intended to convey the meaning of "pun intended"! Unfortunately French lacks this word play.

** Can't resist mentioning they can also be pronounced Moor Eeffocs! If the words are seen from inside.

*** I see signs of some people wanting me to live off food alms and not be able to buy what I want in a shop. They may pretend to be saving me from drunkenness, but as per me being a writer you can count on alcohol being a minor of my expenses, not the major one.

° I might of course be as unrealistic as Jill Pole in The Last Battle ...

When age 16, I decided to convert

I was pretty mistreated by the Church or what I took to be that, and the first I met of them in Sweden back around then were the Jesuits of Uppsala. How mistreated?

I was at age 16 already decided to convert sooner and later. By 17 the decision had been hastened by a sin worse than the usual ones (I have been pardoned). My first words about my own situation to a Jesuit was "I have committed a mortal sin, I need to confess" and the reply was "confession is a sacrament, not a therapy for mental derangement".

If he presumed to know I was mentally deranged if considering I had committed a mortal sin, or if he presumed to know that for another reason, either way I was put off. The reason why I became a Catholic is that I was sure the Catholic Church as such was not that Jesuit.

I was never told not to convert, but I was very much delayed - I was received into the Church only at 19 years and some months, a little before the supposed excommunication of Mgr Lefèbvre. The priest who received me and who was my first confessor was a Pole*, an Oblate of Mary Immaculate, and a man who considered Mgr Lefèbvre was pretty ok on most subjects, though he felt queezy about his "disobedience to the Pope" (what "Pope"?) when proceeding to consecrate the bishops.

I am not reminded of that stern but fundamentally good priest (RIP, he has died since) but rather of the Jesuit when I read this:

Novus Ordo Watch : “Pope” Francis advised Tony Palmer NOT to Convert, ordered him buried as a Catholic Bishop!
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/palmer-not-convert-buried.htm

And of course also of the decision of Pishop Prantenpurger (efery Swedish Catholic derided him effer so chently for his Cherman aktsent) not to confirm me until two years later. Because he thought me not enough mature to receive Confirmation.

I am happy I have not let the Novus Ordo establishment ruin my soul as they (read Bergoglio) did with the heretical non-bishop Palmer. I did not conclude I could save my soul without converting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Damasus I
11-XII-2014

* I must add that this good man was more or less tricked by me in giving granny a Catholic burial. The requiem Mass was on my part an effort to do what I could for her soul, despite her having died not just outside the Church (which Father Imach knew) but probably approving of it (which I presented to him as "having approached the Catholic Church") precisely for its lack of Christianity, for allowing her atheist tantrums with me and ma and her manipulations even before him./HGL

Index IV ENG - From Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Her Immaculate Conception 2014

Part of /Partie d'Index Indicum (pars indicis indicum huius bloggi)

Back		On
Index III ENG (LAT) (Easter to Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary)		Index V ENG - Immaculate Conception to Octave of Epiphany 2015

Jesus from Genesis to Apocalypse

And of Course, EU is Not Worthy to Crusade (Link)

A Geocentric Observation on 68 Cygni - with Parallax, Stellar Size, Distance, and Evolution, What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?, How Geocentrics Account For Seasons

... on Origin of Palestinians, Specially Christian Such, Perfidy of Hamas ... does not totally justify Tsahal.

When the World was a Sheltered Child and You Had Problems, Fifth Crusade?, Three Good TFP Links, Hong Kong (Linking to TFP)

Good Arthur was a Christian King, Mark Shea Somewhat Off on Muslims, Why we Christians do not Punish Raped Women as Adulteresses

Do Not Forget Asia Bibi, Shoebat gets it RIGHT

Dishonest and Murderous Ongoings in the Medical Profession (link)

If I were a Pagan, Who sins more against God?

Inanimate Balls of Fire are Not Fighting, With Angelic Movers, No Need for ETs, Me and Sungenis Answering Same Q, What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

John Harvey Kellogg - Proof Seventh Day Adventism is Diabolical

I Generally Think Communities Know How they Started

Answering George Coyne's Comment to Bill Maher, Reviews of the Principle

God's Regular Action in Creation

Forwarding : Think Before You Go Pink

Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God, A note on "Presuppositional", ... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)

David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me, The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church, David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy

Will Carol Costello Apologise on her Own Show on CNN?

"Aborting because not enough mature"? WHAT?, Teen Mothers. From a debate about a link I am not linking to

Let's see if I can find all four, New blog find ... OK, new blog finds, If you liked (linking to other blogs)

Why I find Jane Friedman's advice largely beside the point, What Readers Should Expect from my Blogs

Two Texts Claiming to be Catholic, Minds are not Parachutes, Tit for tat ..., What did Saint Thomas Really Say About Biblical Inerrancy?

Mon public en France (sans compter le reste du monde), Mijn Lezenaars uit de Nederlanden, Readers of English Tradition ETC.

Que fais-je en dehors de ce blog? [links in English on it], No, My Blogs Are Not Spam Blogs

Has Bergoglio Made a Deal with Masonry about Double Meanings?

1) Assorted retorts: ... on Not Believing Vedic Astronomy Apart from Geocentrism, on Believing Scholastic Astronomy Including Geocentrism, 2) ... on Nicole d'Oresme refusing to apply relativity perfectly understood to Geocentric appearances, 3) ... on Black Holes and Geocentrism, 4) Back to Godinci, 5) HGL's F.B. writings: A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture, 6) Vy considers I accused him falsely of mis-citing the Bible, Rod invokes relativity, 7) Vy makes his point more clearly - so do I, 8) New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Index IV FR - De l'Assomption de la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie à Son Immaculée Conception 2014

Part of /Partie d'Index Indicum (pars indicis indicum huius bloggi)

En arrière		En avant
Index III FR (de Pâcques à l'Assomption de la Bienheureuse Vierge Marie)		Index V FR : Immaculée Conception à l’Octave d’Épiphanie 2015

Les sociologies de Tolkien et d'Asimov, Péguy, Chesterton, Tolkien, Si Tolkien est de la grande litérature ou non

C'est dur ... , Par contraste, c'est facile

Décapitée, Asia Bibi (lien), Ce 21 septembre, tous avec les chrétiens d’Orient !

Un Hérétique à Gap et Embrun, "je ne comprends pas comment on peut manger les animaux"

On a tous ses raisons à choisir l'artisanat, Voyage dans le pays des réparations

Resumé de mes débats géocentriques sur le groupe "Creationism", Le vocable fondamentaliste, Traducteur "Franco-Belge" souhaité

Noé. Hercule. Et peut-être Thésée?, Ayla, a-t-elle pu exister?, Quand Witty ne l'était pas

Qui m'a considéré comme frère hier?, Quand on parle des Musulmans qui sont mauvais, il ne faut pas oublier qu'il y en a qui sont bons

Il y a des confusions sur l'histoire entre Christophe Colombe et 1945

La Panne d'électricité permanente?, Pourquoi je n crois pas qu’Al Bielek soit allé ou XXVIII. Siècle …

Il y en a qui trouvent la Suède un modèle, Valérie Pécresse vient de proposer une nouvelle Inquisition, ainsi qu'Emmanuelle Cosse, Désolé, mais c'était marqué "Armée du Salut" en haut aussi

Le vol par la sécurité de Georges Pompidou? Ou peut-être pas, quand même?, Réjouissez-vous avec moi, lecteurs!, J'aimerais qu'elle soit libre demain si je reviens à Georges Pompidou, Surexcité? Peut-être n'était-il pas le seul.

A-t-il évoqué des "raisons psychiatriques", Bergoglio?, 2 Évêques de Paris (Claude Frollon n'était pas évêque), Le Catholicisme est Charitable, Pas un Système Social

Nouvelle bêtise de Pierre Bergé, quand aux fêtes chrétiennes, Réponse à Dounia Bouzar

On vient de blaguer sur le thème "on nous cache tout"

On n'a pas besoin de réfuter un homme sans domicile qui se prend pour Jésus, Vous êtes arrivé(e) à mes blogs q m?, Ça c'était méchant, à propos Skogli!, Que fais-je en dehors de ce blog?, Les PAGES d'une publicité

Mon public en France (sans compter le reste du monde), Mijn Lezenaars uit de Nederlanden, Readers of English Tradition ETC.

Non Zlatan Ibrahimovic n'est pas Suédois

Index III ENG (LAT) (Easter to Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary)

Part of /Partie d'Index Indicum (pars indicis indicum huius bloggi)

Back		On
Index II ENG (Octave of Epiphany - Easter 2014)		Index IV ENG - From Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Her Immaculate Conception 2014

Christus Resurrexit - Vere Resurrexit

Latine 7 polyglotta

Statistica Multoties Lectorum Bloggatorum in Hoc Bloggo

Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini

Il y en a qui ME considèrent comme polyglotte? Mais ses neuf langues à lui sont plus polyglottes que les miens!

English

Would Sunday Laws Forbit Sabbath Keepers to Buy and Sell?, John Cornwell's Incompetent Fan Club Claims Vatican went Nazi, Chesterton vs Chisholm, Two Reasonings on Abortion

Solange Strong Herz on Geocentrism and Denial Thereof , Answering Alec MacAndrew, Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.

Cornelius and Assisi Meeting, Is peace brought about, when infidels pray together? , Yesterday Bergoglio seems to have thrown me out of the Church - insofar as he was Pope he did, What did I write while or same day as the Crucifix Fell Down?, Did Jack Lewis or CSL have a Reason to Hate the Name Clive Staples? , Answering Sanidopoulos on the Apocalypse, Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics? , Schools in Church Doctrine (Pope Pius XI vs "Vatican II"), Why Bergoglio is Not the Pope

Pope Michael Takes on Pope Francis: Exiled Pope is Living In America (link to video), ... against Yet Another Puritan as in Stupid Attack on Christmas

Is Wall Street Opposition "vain ritualised unconsequential protesting"?, Free Cecily McMillan

A little suspicion ...

In Answer to Mr. Obama's question from a long time ago, Is Dan Kahan Depopulationist, somehow? So far, I don't know for sure, Is there a Criminal in Buckingham Palace?

"Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ...", On Karl Keating's Course, Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate, Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

"You care about me, right?" (Linking)

Did God create ALL ?

Mark Shea Missing the Point, Mackerel Snapper Missing Another Point

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology) , ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

Here is Someone Really Standing Up for Children (or two: a mother and a lawyer), More Good News From Detroit

A Comparison?

Did Kepler (or if it was Newton) think God's thoughts after him?

Fr. Martin Fox on How to Help the Ninivites (link) , Hebrew (link) was the language of these very early Christians, Don't Shell Civilians for Abductions! (Link to what I am talking about), The Crusade for Democracy is Over. Time for a Real Crusade? (Link), And of Course, EU is Not Worthy to Crusade (Link)

Some of these men deserve death, Reviewing CMI's Review of a Book on Nazism and Darwinism, I am shocked by the evil of the Lithuanian Minister of Health.